5 ms·
SCOTUS to decide if 1988 video tape privacy law applies to internet uses
- j-bos 8mo agoWould be interesting if this gets through, though I imagine clickwrap agreements largely negate this anyway. Would be cool if informed consent required a snail mail agreement, might hurt adoption/growth metrics enough that big cos would stop being so greedy. Though that idea could backfire itself.
- frogperson 8mo agoHow will this benefit big business and punish everyone else?
- nielsbot 8mo ago> How will this benefit big business I don't think it's too cynical to say (based on their voting record) that that's the exact question the Heritage Foundation alums on the court as asking themselves at this moment.
- itopaloglu83 8mo agoThis law was passed as a response to a business leaking the rental history of a political figure, not for protecting the privacy of individuals. So, as long as a business doesn’t leak a political figure’s private information, they can pretty much do whatever they want, the court case is just a reminder.
- kristianp 8mo agoI know what POTUS is, but extending the "OTUS" to other people is a tad irritating. What's the SC stand for?
- valleyer 8mo agoThe first sentence of the article should make that clear. In any case, it's a pretty well-established abbreviation in US policy discussions.
- doubletwoyou 8mo agosupreme court
- kristianp 8mo agoThanks, I'm not a USA person.
- mindslight 8mo ago[flagged]
- llbbdd 8mo agoSupreme Court, not council. Are you sure you live here?
- gib444 8mo agoWoosh
- llbbdd 8mo agoMy bad for assuming a good faith answer lol. I didn't realize we were just karma farming and virtue signaling, carry on
- mindslight 8mo agoSarcasm has nothing to do with bad faith. Posting comments in support of the Constitution costs karma half the time these days. And for virtue signalling, we sure had it pretty good. It would be nice if our society could go back to virtue signalling instead of vice signalling.
- llbbdd 8mo agoIt's not plain sarcasm to purposefully misinform somebody asking a legitimate question. They asked for a definition, not your opinion. If you consider your parent comment "supporting the Constitution" maybe you should evaluate whether that was effectively communicated.
- mindslight 8mo ago"Misinform" ? You do realize we're supposed to be like humans talking, and not robots exchanging PDUs, right?
- chmod775 8mo agoI can highly recommend developing a habit of selecting words you don't understand, opening the context menu, and hitting search. Takes somewhere between 2 and 10 seconds to look up acronyms this way.
- svpk 8mo agoA fun fact, SCOTUS as a term predates POTUS by over a decade. So actually -OTUS was extended to POTUS from SCOTUS, not the other way around. Though both are well over 100 years old at this point. I think POTUS is probably the more well used term today, but in any legal context SCOTUS gets used more or less constantly. https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/scotus-potus-flotus https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/scotus-potus-flotus
- throwaway81523 8mo agoThe video tape law was created basically a reaction to someone finding out and revealing Robert Bork (then a SCOTUS nominee)'s video rentals. The rentals themselves were bland, featuring stuff like Disney films, but I guess Congress got scared. It passed by wide margins at the time. I wonder if they are still scared the same way. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
- chmod775 8mo agoIt's one of my favorite examples of those in power absolutely losing their shit when surveillance and violation of privacy happens to them.
- deltoidmaximus 8mo agoNow they'd just pass a law providing only themselves privacy, like how chat control in the EU always has an exemption for those in power.